Supplementary Benefit (Hansard, 23 July 1986)

§ Mr. Newton
If that is a blatant example of some of the problems, let me give the House one or two other examples of what can happen.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
This is the Tories at their worst.

§ Mr. Newton
A lady who left her husband on Thursday night—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Newton
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. However, I do not know how long it will last.
A woman left her husband on Thursday night. She took the children and moved to a women's hostel. On the following Tuesday, she returned to the marital home to resume a normal relationship, having received, in the meantime, over £300 supplementary benefit from another local office. On returning to her husband, only four days later, she requested a single payment for clothing for herself and the children, claiming that her husband gave it all away during her absence.
In another case, a claimant washed in excess of 60 items of clothing, bedding, towels, a dozen nappies, and other items, and put the wet washing into a bin bag to take it to the launderette. The bag vanished. The only explanation the claimant could give was that she had mistaken the bag for one of rubbish, had put the remnants of the family's tea in the bag and put it out for the dustman. [Laughter.]

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
This is not funny; it is tragic. The Government do not understand.

§ Mr. Newton
There is the case where items were stolen from outside a launderette. The items were on top of the claimant's push chair. The mind boggles — [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)
Order. We cannot have these sedentary interventions.

§ Mr. Newton
The mind boggles at the push chair that could carry two sets of towels, two pairs of curtains, two double sheets, eight single sheets, four single blankets, two double blankets, two pillow cases, and a great raft of a family's clothing. It does not stand up. That is typical of many of the claims that we receive.

§ Mr. Frank Field
Why is the Minister citing such cases? Surely the current system deals with those claims. Most offices would not award claims for such lists. Claimants who dispute a decision can go to the appeal tribunals. Is the Minister saying that the appeal tribunals would allow such grants?

§ Mr. Newton
The system that gives rise to a large number of palpable and probable claims of that kind, in a volume which makes it increasingly difficult for DHSS staff to do a proper job of checking claims fairly, and paying claims promptly, is an inherently unsatisfactory system. We feel that it needs reining back and curbing in the way we have proposed.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
rose—

§ Sir Kenneth Lewis (Stamford and Spalding)
rose—

§ Mr. Newton
I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis).

§ Sir Kenneth Lewis
I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend is trying to do. I have no doubt that there is abuse in the system. Equally, I have no doubt that that is aided and abetted by the Labour party. How on earth can DHSS 452 officers give out grants for what are obviously spurious claims and simply say that they do not have the time to check them? My hon. Friend's suggestion will not end that difficulty. It may lessen the amount being spent. If DHSS officers continue to give out grants, even at the lower rate, there will still be abuse of the system. How will my hon. Friend deal with that? We must do so.

§ Mr. Newton
I recognise my hon. Friend's point. It important that we do our job in two respects—first, to ensure that we get benefit effectively and promptly to those who should have it and need it and, secondly, to prevent abuse. The same is true of weekly benefit. We must try to ensure as far as possible that we do not make payments to people who should not have them or who make bogus claims.
The core of a sizeable part of the problem is that a system that is used to generate claims on this basis makes it almost impossible for us to do the sorting out job needed, to prevent abuse and to ensure that we get benefit to those who need it.

§ Mr. Tony Banks
rose—

§ Mr. Winnick
rose—

§ Mr. Newton
Let me reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding.
The first requirement of a system which works as my hon. Friend and I want it to work is that it should be on a manageable scale and be confined to meeting the needs which we all agree must be met.

§ Mr. Winnick
Will the Minister give way on that point?

§ Mr. Tony Banks
rose—

§ Mr. Newton
In a time-limited debate, it would be wrong for me to take up too much more of the time of the House.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
I hope that the Minister goes to confession on Sunday.

§ Mr. Newton
On Monday, I outlined the general lines along which the regulations seek to change the position, concentrating on those we see as having priority needs, including pensioners, the disabled and those needing long-stay hospitals. I outlined the way in which we have responded to the Social Security Advisory Committee's specific recommendations, although I recognised that it did not endorse the proposals as a whole. I continue to believe that what we have put before the House and what is being prayed against tonight is a reasonable, balanced package to restore sensible working to this system and to enable us to achieve those objectives which have rightly been urged upon us.

§ Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)
To a certain extent, we should be grateful that we are having this debate at all. If my reading of the situation is correct, the Government were trying to slip off to summer beaches without having a debate. These regulations are subject to the negative procedure. There is no requirement for a debate to be held before they are implemented. I acknowledge the fact that we are having this debate, but I suspect that it is only because some of us agitated hard to get it.
This whole matter is based on establishing the existing levels need. The evidence of the increases in single 453 payments suggests that the Minister has seriously underestimated the level of need. He seeks to justify the increases in terms of abuse of the system. There may be abuse. If it exists, it should be eradicated. The point that comes across to me strongly from my constituency experience and elsewhere is that there has been a substantial increase in real need. But the Government are moving in exactly the wrong direction to deal with it. I put it squarely to the Minister that the ordinary and long-term rates that apply especially to unemployed people with families, are not high enough to enable people to replace major items, especially furniture. That is proven without any shadow of doubt. The Minister's case is based on the fact that the scale rates are adequate and that the families who receive the scale rates can survive without single payments unless there are exceptional circumstances. I deny that. The ordinary scale rates of £29.80 for a single person and £34.90 for a couple are patently not adequate to meet the replacement cost of major items that are currently provided by single payments. I understand what the Minister is saying, but the evidence that he is quoting suggests that his analysis is quite wrong and that he is moving in totally the wrong direction.
The question of check lists was openly recognised and endorsed by the Social Security Advisory Committee. It may be that the regulations are being abused. If the examples which were read out are true, the claims should not have been accepted. The adjudication officers can rule them out of court. That is the way to deal with that problem. The SSAC is not composed of wild and extreme leftist councillors or whatever. It accepts that, if used responsibly, check lists can assist claimants through these bewilderingly complex areas. [Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) reminds me, the Government have, in the past, introduced check list forms of their own.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was right to pick up the point made by the Minister under pressure that the system, as presently constituted, depends 454 on the massive failure to take up the benefits to which people are entitled. If that is the case, it is a dire state of affairs.
The changes made in relation to furniture grants will cause exceptional hardship. The changes that the Government are making in regulation 28 when Giro cheques are not paid are regressive and are to be regretted. In my experience, many claimants are not aware of their entitlements.
I am also worried about the changes to regulation 30 where we have the health and safety discretionary fallback. That is a mean and hard change to make. At the end of the day, the adjudication officers in my part of the country use that provision with great care and only in exceptional circumstances, which the regulation was designed to cover. The Government's proposal to change that regulation is deeply regretted.
The single payments regulations have differing rates of incidence in different regions of the country. We have had debates about that in Standing Committee. I am worried about the disproportionate effects that the changes will have on some of the regions that have traditionally relied on single payments, for whatever reason. Scotland, Northern Ireland and some other places which have a higher proportion of claims per 1,000 live claims involving single payments will be particularly hard hit. Not only that, but there will be localised effects. The whole economy of places such as Easterhouse, where I was born and brought up, in the constituency of Provan in the east end of Glasgow will have substantial sums of money withdrawn at a stroke by these regulations. That will have severe micro-economic local effects. The total number of claims paid in areas such as Scotland is traditionally higher and the regional effects will be varied and hard to bear.
I am left with the conclusion that this is a Treasury order being visited on the Minister. I do not believe that his heart is in these changes, however much he may go on about abuses. It is just taking money out of the social security system in advance of bringing in the Social Security Bill so that when the time comes he can say that it has not been as bad as some Opposition Members had expected. I certainly oppose these regulations.